browser_navigate_back

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral fact of going back in history, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., losing form input, behavior when no history exists). With annotations present, a mid-range score is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter tool with clear annotations, the description is sufficient for most cases. However, it lacks any mention of edge-case behavior (e.g., when there is no previous page), which could be useful, though not critical given the simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic weight. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. No additional parameter information is necessary.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('go back') and resource ('previous page in the history'), clearly distinguishing this from navigation to a new URL (browser_navigate) and other browser actions. The purpose is immediately apparent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for moving backward in browsing history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Simple and self-evident, yet lacking explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.